There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting.

The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders.

In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses.

As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.

Thank you rightandwrong for opening up the debate. I look forward to the discussing this topic.

I am not opposed to regulating firearms. In fact, I agree it is a good thing that can help protect people. However, for this debate my opponent proposes there is a direct correlation between stricter gun laws and lower violence, which is simply not the case. My goal is to show that merely making stricter gun laws does not by itself decrease gun violence. There are multiple variables at play in this issue that require an equal amount of attention.

I have examined my opponent’s sources and found they contain numerous contradictions. Pro cites a website (1) that lists Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii among the top 10 states with the lowest gun violence (the remaining three states on this list are Nebraska, Minnesota, and Maine). First, notice Pro conveniently overlooks in a second source they use (2) that some of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history occurred in New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and twice in Connecticut. These are some of the vary states Pro uses as champions of gun control. Second, notice this source only lists where gun violence is the lowest and does not speculate as to why it is low.

Curiously, my opponent uses another source (3) to support their position that very clearly contradicts it. The following is the opening paragraph of the website: “Do more guns mean more crime? . . . The answer is a very distinct NO! The correlation between guns and crime is nonexistent.” I assume my opponent uses this website to show the countries Canada, Spain, Australia, and Sweden have lower murder rates than America (4.8). Let’s look at other countries on this website that also supposedly have a lower murder rate: Afghanistan (2.4), Iraq (2.0), Palestine (4.1), Iran (3.0), etc… Gun laws in these countries are basically non-existent, and so Pro’s own source disproves their claim that gun laws in and of themselves reduce violence.

Also some states that have some of the strictest gun laws, like Illinois, still have some of the most violent and dangerous areas in the country (Chicago). Violence in Chicago has recently fallen, but many experts attribute this to better policing techniques, not more gun laws (4).

The sources my opponent has used so far do not prove that stricter gun laws necessarily reduce gun violence.

Thank you for your response. I'd first like to address that gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. I am not saying that enacting more gun laws would completely erase all gun crime, but is an essential component.

As you stated, places such as New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have had mass shootings, yes. But the vast majority of states with fewer gun laws, like Texas, have had mass shootings to. These are uncommon incidents that don't happen everyday. If you look at the bigger picture, the gun laws in places such as New York result in fewer gun crimes. My argument that gun laws reduce gun crimes is still valid.

My opponent talks about how my source doesn't speculate why there are less murders. First of all, this website was about the facts, not the reasons. Secondly, it's difficult to comprehend why the murder rate is low in these states becuase there are many factors to consider.

In my opponent's third paragraph, he explains that the source I used was against gun control. I was only showing the graph that showed how the United States has a far higher gun murder rate than any other country. I'd like to point out that my opponent stated that gun laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, are "non existent," that is not the case. In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. In Palestine, there are no gun laws but only 125,000 people posses a gun. Do you know the how many people reside in Palestine? 4,000,000. I'd also like to point out that in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, the amount of guns purchased is low and the population in these countries is high. It's also problematic to compare Canada to Iraq because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it more difficult to obtain a gun.

My opponent claims that Chicago has the highest amount of violence, I agree. But Chicago also has the highest amount of gangs in the United States. Also, Chicago is one of the many cities in Illinois and is only one area.

In the graph, you can see that there is a dip in 1934. In 1934, the National Firearm Act was founded and murder rate went down drastically. This was after the law was enacted. These might be reasons why murder rate went down. In 1990, the Crime Control Act was made as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. After those laws passed, gun violence went down again.

As you can see, gun violence and gun laws have a strong correlation. Again, I want to remind my opponent and the audience that gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't give any sources about the other countries laws and gave false information. He also didn't provide a claim on why we shouldn't have gun laws.

I thank Pro for their response. I will provide a rebuttal and then present some alternate arguments.

Pro changes their argument. In Round 1, my opponent states “strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders.” Yet, now in Round 2 they say, “gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes.” So which is it? The first quote is what I assumed Pro's position was. The second quote is MY position. If my opponent now wishes to advocate the latter, then we both agree and this debate is now pointless.

Pro misquotes my argument. My opponent states at the end of Round 2 that my position is “we shouldn't have gun laws.” This is not my position. I state very clearly in Round 1 that, “I am not opposed to regulating firearms . . . my goal is to show that merely making stricter gun laws does not by itself decrease gun violence.” Once again, if this is what my opponent now believes, we should delete this debate because we are in agreement.

Facts do not speak for themselves, they require interpretation. This is why, when Pro says in Round 2, “this website was about the facts, not the reasons,” they admit to not making an argument. The reasons are what we’re after here. For example, if I see a person running, that is a fact – someone is running. But this fact gives me no actual understanding as to why. Is he exercising? Is he running from the police? Did the tiger escape from the local zoo? I don’t know, I need to do further analysis. To make facts useful, you must analyze them. My opponent, by their own admission, does not do this.

My opponent absurdly states “In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws.” Do we really think only 3% of Palestinians have access to weapons? Do we really think gun laws are enforced and followed in Afghanistan? I’ve been to Afghanistan, and I can tell you the answer is no. Perhaps the reason “the amount of guns purchased is low” in these countries is because people don’t need to purchase them – they already have them, or they smuggle them in. And yet, according to my opponent’s own sources, the murder rate in Afghanistan is still supposedly lower than America’s.

My opponent uses unreliable sources. I would not consider the Mack Family Blog (zeigen.com), Wikipedia, and a website that looks like a high school web design project (sunray22b.net) authorities on gun policy. There are lots of credible resources out there, I challenge Pro to use them.

Now, on to some alternate arguments:

More gun laws do not necessarily stop gun violence. According to the Cato Institute, the Columbine shooters broke around 20 different gun laws in order to amass the arsenal of weapons they eventually used (1). More laws didn’t stop them. Maybe we need to focus on better enforcement of existing laws rather than adding new ones.

According to the National Research Council 2013 report on gun violence, suicide accounts for 61% of all deaths from firearm related violence in the U.S (2). Maybe we have more of a suicide than a homicide problem. Maybe we need to look into more effective mental health programs, rather than simply more gun laws.

Furthermore, stricter gun laws do not apply to people who don’t follow the law anyway – criminals. Criminals are a major source of gun related crimes, and making more laws won’t stop them – they will just make law abiding citizens easier targets. Although an exact number is hard to pinpoint, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 3,000,000 crimes are prevented each year by law abiding citizens using legal firearms for defense (3). Maybe we have a criminal problem, and need to focus on cleaning up crime infested areas, rather than simply more gun laws.

As I hope I’ve made clear, I am absolutely in favor of gun control. I think we need laws and they should be well enforced. I am combating what I thought my opponent’s position was – that we should enact more and stricter gun laws because it will decrease murder rates. I apologize if my opponent was looking to debate someone who thinks “we shouldn’t have gun laws,” but this is not my position.

Hey man, I'm not trying to be difficult or abrasive. I do not have to advocate "no gun laws" to disagree with your position. Perhaps you should clarify your argument better next time. You wrote, verbatim, "There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders." So I deduced your position was that more gun laws decrease mass murder rate. But then you backtrack and say, "gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor," which is actually what I wrote in my argument. If you want to discontinue the debate I understand and I apologize for wasting your time.